Why does John have no problem calling both Annas and Caiaphas, father and son, "high priest"?
There can only be one high priest, right?
So, is this not a case establishing that two men may be called after a certain title ("high priest"), even though the nature of the title is such that only one of those men can actually be that title?
Could it be that John included this in his Gospel as a clue to understanding God--ie, "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son... has explained Him", and "Whoever sees Me sees the Father"--so that both the Son and Father may be referred to as "God", yet only one of them being "the true God" (Jn 17:3)?
I'm sure I'll get some drama on this one, but I can't ignore passages (eg, John 1:18--or, on the other hand, 20:28) just to make things easy.
John 18
13They brought Him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. 14Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be better if one man died for the people.
...
19Meanwhile, [Annas] the high priest questioned Jesus about His disciples and His teaching.
20“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus answered. “I always taught in the synagogues and at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21Why are you asking Me? Ask those who heard My message. Surely they know what I said.”
22When Jesus had said this, one of the officers standing nearby slapped Him in the face and said, “Is this how You answer [Annas] the high priest?” 23Jesus replied, “If I said something wrong, testify as to what was wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why did you strike Me?”
24Then Annas [the high priest] sent Him, still bound, to [his son] Caiaphas the high priest.
There can only be one high priest, right?
So, is this not a case establishing that two men may be called after a certain title ("high priest"), even though the nature of the title is such that only one of those men can actually be that title?
Could it be that John included this in his Gospel as a clue to understanding God--ie, "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son... has explained Him", and "Whoever sees Me sees the Father"--so that both the Son and Father may be referred to as "God", yet only one of them being "the true God" (Jn 17:3)?
I'm sure I'll get some drama on this one, but I can't ignore passages (eg, John 1:18--or, on the other hand, 20:28) just to make things easy.
John 18
13They brought Him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. 14Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be better if one man died for the people.
...
19Meanwhile, [Annas] the high priest questioned Jesus about His disciples and His teaching.
20“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus answered. “I always taught in the synagogues and at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21Why are you asking Me? Ask those who heard My message. Surely they know what I said.”
22When Jesus had said this, one of the officers standing nearby slapped Him in the face and said, “Is this how You answer [Annas] the high priest?” 23Jesus replied, “If I said something wrong, testify as to what was wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why did you strike Me?”
24Then Annas [the high priest] sent Him, still bound, to [his son] Caiaphas the high priest.
